Noone has covered this question yet so I thought I might as well give it a shot.
In this question we're asked to find something that the author DOES NOT USE to advance her point. So I'll work from wrong to right here with each answer choice as that is what I did when answering this question.
A) Draws an analogy. Does the author draw an analogy ever? Yes. She uses the analogy of the dog in the very last line of the stimulus.
B) Appeal to a historical fact. This one was a little harder for me to find but that was because it was stated right in the beginning. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure the historical fact is "The USA has never been a great international trader". So this answer choice can't be right.
C) Identify a Cause and Effect. The author definitely does use this by stating that the USA "found most of its raw materials..." caused this effect "as this country now owes the largest..."
D) Suggesting a Cause of the current economic situation. Yup she definitely uses this which is the cause mentioned in C) "found most of its raw materials..."
E) By order of elimination you could have chosen this answer but I'll try prove why it's the answer without just using O of E. This is the right answer because the author never questions the "ethical basis" of an economic situation. In her argument there is never mention of ethical dilemmas involved in the USA's debt. The premises used are factual in the stimulus.
Hope this helps!